For most people philosophy begins and ends with one subject: God. When confronted with the inevitable quandaries, metaphysic and moral, that afflict our species an answer is supplied as quickly as the question is asked: God is the answer to all things. The alpha and the omega. The (how I hate even typing it!) "life force" that unites all substances into one. Yes Obi-Wan, the force is with you. But how does this trick work? After all, as theologians throughout the centuries have shown, simply believing in God does not automatically satisfy ones curiosity about these issues. If so what need would there have been for a Thomas Aqinuas (the most important catholic theologian in history) or even Rene Descartes (the father of modern philosophy, mind/body dualist, and French mathematician.) The answer is faith. Most religious people openly admit belief in a "God" which on some fundamental level they cannot possibly understand or describe. Accepting some strange compromised form of epistemological skepticism, under the guise of "God," most individuals then just sidebar all philosophical curiosity and in moments of contemplation, fall back on their "faith." But maybe this is changing. In the past year, Atheism has received more press and broadcast time than it ever has before. The non-believers among us are coming out of the woodwork in droves. The catalyst for this gush of non-belief? Three best-selling books."The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and "God is not Great" by Christopher Hitchens have all landed like a juggernaut in the publishing world and skyrocketed to the top of non-fiction best seller lists. Google these authors and titles; a flood of links and reviews follow. Nonetheless, few of these reviews analyze the books from a strictly philosophical perspective. Acknowledging that the question of God is ultimately philosophical in nature, the following analyses I hope are not superfluous in the dialogue on this watershed issue. I'll comment on each of the books in three separate posts. The first is Sam Harris' "The End of Faith."
1 comment:
What is most offensive about atheism is not its disbelief in a particular religion. It is, no doubt, a tremendous stretch to believe a poor carpenter born in ancient Israel to be the son of God. Rather, atheism's two worst traits are its sense of superiority and faulty logic. First and foremost, it seems that the majority of atheists feel they are somewhat intellectually superior for not believing in God. They have, if you will, figured "it" out-whatever it may be. One can picture all of the before-named authors enjoying cognac, a pipe and Hannah and her sisters discussing the god illusion that they have all evaded. Really, some of the worlds greatest thinkers, theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, scientists all have believed and do believe in God. Really, did Dawkins figure out something they hadn't? At least Nietzsche stated that the NEED for God was over-far different from stating that there is not God. I had a conversation recently with an atheist who asked if I believed in bethel some bullshit-this Hebrew God of War. He understood that since I did not believe in that Hebrew God I didn't believe in God at all. That is totally false, of course.
Thomas Aquinas was not simply a theologian but one of the greatest western philosophers. Great, not because of his own creations but of his understanding and reinterpretation of Aristotle. Aquinas' Summa begins with the Utrum deus sit-aka the proofs of God's existence. Utrum deus sit-whether God exists-is fairly easy to prove and only makes up of less than a fifth of Aquinas' summa. What is more difficult to understand is WHAT God is. How one understands God is defined by humans-or churches-these definitions are qualitative. This is where atheists place their major points of contention. They worry about the qualitative descriptions of God. Forget the fact that God's existence can be philosophically proven and focus on the sins of churches. Poison the well of religion so that people wont want to drink.
Finally, if atheists do believe that God can not be proved, how can atheists prove that God does NOT exist. Isn't that just as difficult as proving that God does exist. Truthfully evidence could point in both directions. Both require faith. One faith, however, is used by people who claim to be intellectually superior the other used by the moral majority. This seems to turn more into a political/ideological battle, then, rather than anything fruitful. Perhaps Aquinas was wrong in his understanding of what God is-how he exists, if you will. That one can argue with. His proof on whether God exists is a little more challenging to debunk
Post a Comment